Why recruiting matters, and the importance of signing day

[BigRedBuster]

 

Bill Snyder's success doesn't prove recruiting doesn't matter. It just shows that in a place like KSU you have to be creative with it and a really good talent evaluator.

 

That said, what really has Bill won't own there for as many years as he been there?

I think what Snyder proves is that recruiting rankings aren't all that matters.

Very few people believe recruiting rankings are all that matters.

[cornographic]

Bill Snyder's success doesn't prove recruiting doesn't matter. It just shows that in a place like KSU you have to be creative with it and a really good talent evaluator.

 

That said, what really has Bill won down there for as many years as he been there?

 

Glad you asked. For all this hype over Bill's "success" over 24 yrs, let's look at facts shall we?

 

1) Overall Record--193-101-1, ~66% Ws

2) Conference Record--112-77-1, ~59% Ws

3) Div Cs--5, tied for 2

4) CCs--2, tied for one

5) Bowls--7-9

6) NCs--0

 

Conclusion: hype

 

#starslivesmatter

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Snyder#Head_coaching_record

[cm husker]

Your math seems off if those numbers are right.

 

But for running into the buzzsaw that was NU football in the 90s, his championship numbers would be much better.

 

And for all the talk about what was inherited at OSU by Riley, KSU was much worse off.

 

I find it amusing that you consider a hall of fame career mostly just hype. Goes along way in explaining your attitude toward firing .700+ coaches.

[cornographic]

Bill Snyder has gone 57-33 since he's got back in '09--~58% Ws. 1 CC, 3-6 in '05. Well, all in all, he does the best he can with 2* and 3* recruits and JUCOs.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.

 

 

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

For the last 11 years in a row... without fail... 100% of the time... the team that has won the national championship has achieved the elite player metric (number of elite players on the team - 4 and 5 star players).

 

If a team has met that metric then they have a chance to win the national championship. If they don't meet that metric they have 0% chance to win the national title... as in zero.

 

Reality... fact.

Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. You're confusing past results with future returns. It's certainly an interesting trend, but there is absolutely no guarantee that this "metric" will continue to be true. And the first time a non-top-ten-recruiting team wins the title, the "metric" will shift slightly to whatever includes that champion and the previous ones (e.g. "You need a top 13 recruiting class...").

 

And for Mandel to call everyone else lazy about statistics is laughable - there's only 11 data points for the conclusion he's drawing!!

 

None of what I'm saying implies that recruiting isn't important though. Just that the evidence being used here does NOT imply future results.

More fairy tale thinking.

 

Yes... something happening 11 out of 11 times in a row does imply future results... especially when the thing that happened 11 out of 11 times in a row... was proven by the results on the field.

You can't "prove" something by looking at a limited set of results. And calling everyone else's posts "fairy tale thinking" is pretty funny since you're the one who has the fairy tale that only top ten recruiting class teams (or whatever the metric is) can win the title.

A sample size of 11 isn't necessarily too small, especially when the proportion = 1.

[cm husker]

Bill Snyder has gone 57-33 since he's got back in '09--~58% Ws. 1 CC, 3-6 in '05. Well, all in all, he does the best he can with 2* and 3* recruits and JUCOs.

 

Very odd bit of cherry picking you did there.

 

What's amusing is that the author of these articles and many posters in this thread seem to think that some of us don't believe recruiting to be important. Just the opposite. I just don't trust that the recruiting services know what they are talking about, beyond the feedback loop they provide when they rank kids based on their offer lists.

 

If the recruitniks were good evaluators of talent, they'd be on coaching staffs around the country getting paid much more than the $10k to $20k they receive.

 

It's also just silly how people say "WE MUST BE RANKED HIGHLY TO WINNNNN!!!!111!!!@12!"

 

Really? we need good recruits to win championships? This is incredibly insightful stuff.. I understand why people pay subscriptions into the $100s of millions of dollars industry that is recruitniking.

 

Of course, it begs the question, if everyone knows this and everyone is doing their best to recruit the best talent possible, then what is a team like NU left to do?

 

One last note: the entire reductive argument stating that you need X 4* and 5* recruits because the "negative" of that has only 1 one championship in 20 years is weakened by the fact that many kids get bumps based on the programs that they ultimately attend.

 

Heck, there's even a lot of evidence that Nebraska classes benefited from that perception in the mid 90s, when our classes jumped from the 20s to the top 10 after "showing we had athletes too" in the '93 loss to FSU.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.

 

 

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

For the last 11 years in a row... without fail... 100% of the time... the team that has won the national championship has achieved the elite player metric (number of elite players on the team - 4 and 5 star players).

 

If a team has met that metric then they have a chance to win the national championship. If they don't meet that metric they have 0% chance to win the national title... as in zero.

 

Reality... fact.

Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. You're confusing past results with future returns. It's certainly an interesting trend, but there is absolutely no guarantee that this "metric" will continue to be true. And the first time a non-top-ten-recruiting team wins the title, the "metric" will shift slightly to whatever includes that champion and the previous ones (e.g. "You need a top 13 recruiting class...").

 

And for Mandel to call everyone else lazy about statistics is laughable - there's only 11 data points for the conclusion he's drawing!!

 

None of what I'm saying implies that recruiting isn't important though. Just that the evidence being used here does NOT imply future results.

More fairy tale thinking.

 

Yes... something happening 11 out of 11 times in a row does imply future results... especially when the thing that happened 11 out of 11 times in a row... was proven by the results on the field.

You can't "prove" something by looking at a limited set of results. And calling everyone else's posts "fairy tale thinking" is pretty funny since you're the one who has the fairy tale that only top ten recruiting class teams (or whatever the metric is) can win the title.

A sample size of 11 isn't necessarily too small, especially when the proportion = 1.

 

 

If we are looking at just the last 11 championships, the number of teams winning those is actually only eight (Alabama, Florida, FSU, Ohio State, Texas, Florida, LSU, Auburn), meaning the sample in a sense is even smaller.

 

Other "to win a championship, you ..." type conclusions that are similar to "you must have X top 10 classes or X% of 4* and 5* classes" that can be drawn from this data:

 

You must be a team from south of the Mason Dixon line (with one exception - and that was a coach who was previously coaching south of the Mason Dixon).

 

You must be a team from east of the Mississippi (with Texas being an exception)

 

You must not be in the P12

 

and the list of meaningless and unsubstantiated conclusions could go on...

 

Again, no one is arguing that recruiting is unimportant. Some of us simply believe that top 10 classes are not a prerequisite for winning championships (though they certainly help). An for those of us who are fans of Nebraska, we should hope that those some of us are correct.

[84HuskerLaw]

Bill Snyder has gone 57-33 since he's got back in '09--~58% Ws. 1 CC, 3-6 in '05. Well, all in all, he does the best he can with 2* and 3* recruits and JUCOs.

57 wins and 33 losses computes to a winning percentage of 63.33% and 193 wins and 101 losses = 65.6%. Your math may be fuzzy.

KState was perhaps the worst division one football program in the Nation historically. Snyder made is a perennial top 35 and has had them ranked in the top 5 a handful of polls at least. He is one of the better coaches in the country and one of the top evaluators of talent and recruits. He finds many 'diamonds in the rough' and often in little towns across the plains states. You can find a good group of players on his starting units. Nebraska could instantly jump into the top twenty were we able to choose about a dozen or so of Bill's best players to add to our roster. Don't be fooled. K State play quality football and has for a long time since Snyder built that program. I dare say it is one of the 'miracle' program builds in division 1 history. In my view of course which I think would be agreed with by many.

[olddominionhusker]

Good point. 20 years ago it would have been laughable to think Nebraska was competing with TCU, Baylor and Houston for coaches, players or respect.

 

We had a bigger slice of a smaller pie back then.

 

At the moment we still have a bigger stadium, better facilities and a richer history, so we gotta make that matter while we can.

 

If we're really serious, we'll start recruiting hotter co-eds.

Coeds. Also an area where the SEC/Pac12 are untouchable

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.

 

 

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

For the last 11 years in a row... without fail... 100% of the time... the team that has won the national championship has achieved the elite player metric (number of elite players on the team - 4 and 5 star players).

 

If a team has met that metric then they have a chance to win the national championship. If they don't meet that metric they have 0% chance to win the national title... as in zero.

 

Reality... fact.

Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. You're confusing past results with future returns. It's certainly an interesting trend, but there is absolutely no guarantee that this "metric" will continue to be true. And the first time a non-top-ten-recruiting team wins the title, the "metric" will shift slightly to whatever includes that champion and the previous ones (e.g. "You need a top 13 recruiting class...").

 

And for Mandel to call everyone else lazy about statistics is laughable - there's only 11 data points for the conclusion he's drawing!!

 

None of what I'm saying implies that recruiting isn't important though. Just that the evidence being used here does NOT imply future results.

More fairy tale thinking.

 

Yes... something happening 11 out of 11 times in a row does imply future results... especially when the thing that happened 11 out of 11 times in a row... was proven by the results on the field.

You can't "prove" something by looking at a limited set of results. And calling everyone else's posts "fairy tale thinking" is pretty funny since you're the one who has the fairy tale that only top ten recruiting class teams (or whatever the metric is) can win the title.

A sample size of 11 isn't necessarily too small, especially when the proportion = 1.

If we are looking at just the last 11 championships, the number of teams winning those is actually only eight (Alabama, Florida, FSU, Ohio State, Texas, Florida, LSU, Auburn), meaning the sample in a sense is even smaller.

 

Other "to win a championship, you ..." type conclusions that are similar to "you must have X top 10 classes or X% of 4* and 5* classes" that can be drawn from this data:

 

You must be a team from south of the Mason Dixon line (with one exception - and that was a coach who was previously coaching south of the Mason Dixon).

 

You must be a team from east of the Mississippi (with Texas being an exception)

 

You must not be in the P12

 

and the list of meaningless and unsubstantiated conclusions could go on...

 

Again, no one is arguing that recruiting is unimportant. Some of us simply believe that top 10 classes are not a prerequisite for winning championships (though they certainly help). An for those of us who are fans of Nebraska, we should hope that those some of us are correct.

I don't see anyone mentioning musts. There's probability. No one is saying that the next team who wins it must have those traits. But it's wrong to say what happened does not predict what will likely happen in the future. It absolutely is a good predictor of what will happen. There was nothing wrong with any of those other examples you used. There is a high probability, based on the past 11 seasons, that the next team to win the national championship will have great recruiting and be from the southeast region of the country.

[cm husker]

Wow.

 

And I'll leave it at that.

[Moiraine]

Wow.

 

And I'll leave it at that.

How do you think predictive analytics works? If you wanted to make an argument you could argue there are way more variables that help explain the outcomes.

 

Also, something being probable doesn't mean it'll happen. Iowa was 1 drive from the playoffs this season and their recruiting sucks.

[RedDenver]

I don't see anyone mentioning musts. There's probability. No one is saying that the next team who wins it must have those traits. But it's wrong to say what happened does not predict what will likely happen in the future. It absolutely is a good predictor of what will happen. There was nothing wrong with any of those other examples you used. There is a high probability, based on the past 11 seasons, that the next team to win the national championship will have great recruiting and be from the southeast region of the country.

Look back at Husker Psycho's posts (and maybe others) that claim it is proven that only teams with a top ten recruiting class can win the national title. My issue is anyone claiming that no team could possibly win the title without a top ten recruiting class.

[cornographic]

 

Bill Snyder has gone 57-33 since he's got back in '09--~58% Ws. 1 CC, 3-6 in '05. Well, all in all, he does the best he can with 2* and 3* recruits and JUCOs.

57 wins and 33 losses computes to a winning percentage of 63.33% and 193 wins and 101 losses = 65.6%. Your math may be fuzzy.

KState was perhaps the worst division one football program in the Nation historically. Snyder made is a perennial top 35 and has had them ranked in the top 5 a handful of polls at least. He is one of the better coaches in the country and one of the top evaluators of talent and recruits. He finds many 'diamonds in the rough' and often in little towns across the plains states. You can find a good group of players on his starting units. Nebraska could instantly jump into the top twenty were we able to choose about a dozen or so of Bill's best players to add to our roster. Don't be fooled. K State play quality football and has for a long time since Snyder built that program. I dare say it is one of the 'miracle' program builds in division 1 history. In my view of course which I think would be agreed with by many.

 

Yeah, fixed: overall ~66% and conf. ~59%. I think Bill is a great coach and if he had the luxury of, say, a TX recruiting base, he'd surely have some Natty's under his belt. There's only so much you can do with 2 and 3* players.

[Moiraine]

 

I don't see anyone mentioning musts. There's probability. No one is saying that the next team who wins it must have those traits. But it's wrong to say what happened does not predict what will likely happen in the future. It absolutely is a good predictor of what will happen. There was nothing wrong with any of those other examples you used. There is a high probability, based on the past 11 seasons, that the next team to win the national championship will have great recruiting and be from the southeast region of the country.

Look back at Husker Psycho's posts (and maybe others) that claim it is proven that only teams with a top ten recruiting class can win the national title. My issue is anyone claiming that no team could possibly win the title without a top ten recruiting class.

 

 

I looked back and completely agree with you that there's no guarantee. For the record I'm not arguing any of this because I give a crap about the topic. I just don't like when people say B.S. things about statistics.

 

There's no guarantee that only a team with amazing recruiting can win the national championship. But recruiting level is probably a good predictor for whether a team is going to win the national championship.